I research, write about innovation, privacy and reputation via my books and articles, and work on it with clients as president of Arcadia, a communications research, design & delivery lab focused on today's most important, cutting-edge issues. I have 30+ years of professional experience working at big ad/PR agencies and at major brands, and I'm a Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Is There A Downside To Mountain Dew And Hyundai Ad Gaffes?

A recent Hyundai ad in the UK made fun of suicide to demonstrate its zero-emission cars. Here in the US, an online video from Mountain Dew (its cans read Mtn Dew) parodied a police lineup to establish its street cred. The spots were recalled after outbursts of indignant offense circulated on the web. I’m sure PR teams at both brands are scurrying about trying to “contain” the crises, as senior management asks questions about processes that allow such stuff to ever see the light of day.

But what if there’s no downside to the ads?

Think about it. Rotten advertising has never been a crime, or at least not one for which anyone other than the offending agency was ever prosecuted. We mostly forget ads that were forgettable, and even the notably horrible ones have half-lives that decay pretty quickly. I suspect that most consumers are aware that ads are contrived by marketers for the purposes of marketing. It’s not like the stuff emerges from people’s souls, or gets etched on the granite walls of corporate HQ.

On the other hand, think about the benefits of controversy. The old adage that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” could still be true, perhaps more so now. Sure, there will be a people today who were dissuaded from picking up a 6-pack of Mountain Dew at the grocery or chose to drive past the Hyundai dealership on a car buying trip. But I imagine the groups of people who were made aware of the controversies, and weren’t about to reach for a new car or can of soda pop, are both far larger, and far more amendable to side with the brands.

The outcry only magnifies the exposure the content would have otherwise generated. Better yet, the people who are likely to view such stuff favorably will pick up on the news about the videos without having seen them, which means they’ll probably remember the ruckus and not the details. Hyundai has attitude. Mountain Dew is edgy. Both brands ran afoul of society’s oppressive political correctness and lack of a sense of humor. After all, it’s just marketing. What’s the big deal?

Will the people aggrieved by the spots remember them? Perhaps consumer panels will reveal negative sale impacts over time, but I doubt it. Can you name a brand that you’d never buy because of a dumb ad? I can’t, though I can name lots of brands that I buy despite their bad (and sometimes offensively so) advertising or other content. Advertising or PR that exhibits bad taste is nothing new.

Interestingly, in both cases the sources for the offending material were somewhat distanced from the brands. Hyundai said the ad was produced by one of its agencies without its request or approval, and the Mountain Dew video is the output of Tyler, the Creator, whose day-job isn’t even in the marketing business, per se, but as the leader of the hip-hop group Odd Future (his bandmates feature in the spot). I’m not sure I find the explanations from the businesses particularly honest or necessary. A simple apology would probably suffice. Again, it’s just marketing. Couldn’t they say as much?

There’s no greater crime in our 24/7 mediasphere than being invisible, and no greater accomplishment than relevance. Controversy is a quick and bold strategy to address both points, so I predict that we’re probably going to see just as many infractions to good taste going forward, if not more of them. Unlike real operational offenses — environmental disasters, bad working conditions, or simply product or service failures — the downside to controversial content may last as long as the next news cycle…only to replaced by different controversies.

These events argue for a bigger debate about the purpose and practices of content marketing, or at least the bleeding edge of it. Both spots evidenced broken internal processes that elevate shock over substance, form over function, and glib definitions of social currency over the established metrics of business success.

It’s not where I’d choose to live as a communicator, but it just might work. For now.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

We’re back to the classic media topic on whether all news is good news. Unfortunately, the problem of thriving on controversy positions the topic into same category as a viral hit, you talk about it and then forget about it. Truthfully, I feel that this strategy creates a level of separation between the consumers and the brand, disassociating companies from longterm branding impact with consumers.

I think you’re right. My point was that I could understand how marketers get to the conclusion that controversy is good…or, more broadly, that they can outsource their branding to creators of content that has utterly nothing to do with the business, per se…but I don’t happen to agree with it (hence my last line in the essay). I think it contributes to the very separation and distrust you mention.